Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-11-03 HPC MIN City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission November 3, 2008 Present: Vice Chair Jeff Johnson, Phil Eastwood, Gayle Hudak, Larry Nelson, Roger Tomten, Scott Zahren and Council Liaison Robert Gag Staff present: Planner Mike Pogge Absent: Howard Lieberman Vice Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Zahren, seconded by Ms. Hudak, moved approval of the minutes of Aug. 18, 2008. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Zahren, seconded by Ms. Hudak, moved approval of the minutes of Oct. 6, 2008. Motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. DEM/08-51 A demolition request for a residence at 615 St. Louis St. E. in the RB, Two Family Residential District, and Neighborhood Conservation District design review. David G. Junker, applicant. Regarding the requested demolition permit, Mr. Johnson pointed out the applicant had completed all nine requirements for the issuance of a permit. Mr. Junker stated the house had been on the market since April, with no purchase offers. He said he loves the neighborhood, but the existing house is too small. He stated he has contacted house movers and may be able to have the house moved if that can happen before Thanksgiving. Mr. Junker said he is still requesting the demolition permit in the event that the house cannot be moved before the Thanksgiving deadline. He stated the proposed new structure will have the same footprint as the existing house. The only change, he said, is that the new house will have an attached garage; the new structure will be two stories in height, rather than a single-level. He said the new house will be Hardi-board on all four sides, with stone at the front entry only. He showed some photos of the neighborhood, referring to the wide variety of architectural styles that exist in the neighborhood. He pointed out that he had taken out the initially proposed space above the garage. Two sketches of replacement structures were included in the packet, and Mr. Junker said he preferred the Craftsman style architecture, versus the Prairie style. Mr. Junker provided a list of signatures of neighbors in favor of the proposal. Mr. Johnson opened the public hearing. Pam Anondson, 1305 Fourth Ave. S., thanked Mr. Junker for looking into the possibility of having the house moved. She stated her primary concern was demolishing the structure when there are people who are in need of homes in which to live. She said design issues are the least of her concern. James Hanson, 1303 Fifth Ave. S., expressed a concern that constructing a new, expensive home as proposed will increase his property taxes. No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Eastwood noted that all nine steps of the demolition ordinance had been fulfilled and spoke of the eclectic architectural nature of the neighborhood. Mr. Johnson agreed that the nine required steps had been met for 1 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission November 3, 2008 the demolition permit, but expressed his hope that the existing structure can be moved and reused. Mr. Tomten echoed Mr. Johnson’s comments, and stated regarding the infill design review that the Craftsman style reduces the massing of the new structure, with a roofline that does a better job in keeping the height down as compared to the Prairie style. Mr. Eastwood moved to approve the demolition permit and approve the Craftsman style for the replacement structure, subject to staff approval of the final design, clarifying that the new structure will be Hardi-board with stonework only at the front entry and with no second story over the garage. Ms. Hudak seconded the motion. Mr. Zahren pointed out that previous structures the Commission has been asked to approve for demolition have been in poor shape, while this structure is in good shape. Mr. Zahren said it “doesn’t make sense to destroy a decent structure” and he questioned tearing down a perfectly good house. Mr. Pogge suggested the issue raised by Mr. Zahren comes with the 50-year parameters of the existing demolition ordinance. Mr. Johnson noted that the nine steps for the issuance of a permit had been meet, giving the Commission no option other than to approve the permit, and he noted that Mr. Junker had pushed the envelope in looking at options for moving the structure. Mr. Eastwood’s motion for approval passed unanimously. DESIGN REVIEWS Case No. 08-52 Design review of signage at 2510 Curve Crest Blvd. (The Edge Performance Hockey Training Center) in the BP-C, Business Park Commercial District. Matt Doman, applicant. The applicant was not present. Mr. Eastwood, seconded by Mr. Zahren, moved approval as conditioned. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. 08-53 Design review of exterior modifications of façade at 232 N. Main St. in the CBD, Central Business District. Mark Balay Architects, representing Gartner Studios, applicant. Mr. Balay was present. Mr. Balay reviewed the request for eight additional window openings along with a new deck, rail and second floor door on the south side of the building. Mr. Balay said the new windows will match the existing windows in style and detail; he noted that eventually all the windows will be replaced with new clad casement windows. Regarding the railing, Mr. Balay noted there is already a deck area on the structure; he said the plans are to have a glass handrail. Mr. Tomten asked about the support for the rail. Mr. Balay said the rail will need to meet code and will essentially be invisible; Mr. Pogge pointed out that due to the site, the rail will not be visible even if constructed of wood. Mr. Eastwood, seconded by Mr. Nelson, moved approval as conditioned. Mr. Tomten suggested adding a condition that staff review the final drawings and clarify that the new windows will match the window details of the existing structure. Mr. Eastwood accepted Mr. Tomten’s suggestion as a friendly amendment to the motion as did Mr. Nelson. Amended motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Review and comment on Historic Resources and Downtown chapter of the Comprehensive Plan update – Mr. Johnson said he thought the Historical Resources chapter was very well done, and 2 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission November 3, 2008 Mr. Gag commented that he thought the chapter was one of the strongest sections in the Plan update. Mr. Eastwood questioned the use of the term “local” lending institutions in policy No. 7 on page 2, suggesting perhaps that is too limiting. Mr. Pogge explained there is a federal reason for specifying local lending institution. Ms. Hudak said she would like to see a stronger policy to assist those who can’t afford restoration. Mr. Eastwood also noted that on page three of the chapter it states the Commission is responsible for review of applications for new development or renovations … the Commission doesn’t not review remodeling projects of existing sites in the Neighborhood Conservation District, he noted. Mr. Eastwood also spoke of what he termed an “inconsistency” in the land use section in that commercial use is encouraged in the annexation area, while it is discouraged in the historic neighborhoods; he said he thought commercial use was part of the fabric of the historic neighborhoods and ought to be given the same consideration as encouraging such use in the annexation area. Mr. Pogge pointed out there is only one site specified for future commercial use in the western portion of the City, the site at Myrtle and Manning. Mr. Pogge briefly reviewed the Downtown Framework Plan. Mr. Johnson stated he did not have a lot of comments to add related to this section. Mr. Tomten said he had talked with Community Development Director Turnblad regarding putting a “more positive spin” on the market analysis for the potential for more convenience/neighborhood retail in the downtown area. Review and recommendation on Downtown Sidewalk Sign policy – The draft of the proposed policy was included in the agenda packet. Mr. Gag pointed out that the committee assigned to come up with the policy had done a lot of work. Mr. Nelson asked who would be responsible for enforcing the policy; Mr. Pogge responded that would be his responsibility. Mr. Johnson said the proposal seems to get at the intended purpose. There was discussion about the fact that state law prohibits such signage in the highway right-of-way. Mr. Pogge explained that MnDOT has indicated it will not approve the policy but will live with it. Mr. Nelson pointed out that many small towns have such signage as part of their downtowns. Mr. Zahren, seconded by Mr. Tomten, moved to approve the draft policy in concept. Vote was 5-1, with Mr. Eastwood voting no. Review of Business Park signage – Mr. Pogge reviewed the history of the issue that resulted in the Planning Commission’s recommendation that the signage policy be revised. He reviewed the proposed changes, primarily a change to allow each site to have a total allowable sign area of 15 percent of the building wall surface, allowing a minimum of 100 square feet and maximum of 300 square feet of total sign area. Mr. Johnson clarified that the existing limit of 1 square foot of signage per square foot of building frontage has not been changed, noting that on first reading it would appear that a business would be allowed at least 100 square feet of signage. Mr. Eastwood questioned why the Planning Commission was doing this revision to the signage policy when the Heritage Preservation Commission reviews signage. OTHER BUSINESS ? Mr. Johnson asked about the status of issues with the Lumber Baron’s Hotel. Mr. Pogge said that is still in litigation. ? Mr. Johnson asked about the outcome of Maple Island’s request for a variance from the Planning Commission. Mr. Pogge stated the request was tabled by the Planning 3 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission November 3, 2008 ? Commission for more information regarding several questions the Planning Commission had. Mr. Pogge noted the request was submitted as a variance from the infill regulations, noting that if the building is not an infill structure, the Stefans could build their proposed structure if they use a flat roof rather than a pitched roof; the flat roof design would have to come back to the HPC for review, he noted. ? Mr. Tomten asked about the status of the revision to the demolition ordinance. Mr. Pogge stated that has been put on the back burner due to the efforts on the Comprehensive Plan update. Mr. Eastwood, seconded by Mr. Nelson, moved to adjourn at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 4